Who do you tip to win the US presidential election

[Kidlicious]

It's difficult for me to copy from the Texas lawsuit but this should prove that JM is falsely accusing.

"than 173,000 ballots in the Wayne County, MI
center that cannot be tied to a registered voter;2
• Videos of: poll workers erupting in cheers as poll
challengers are removed from vote counting
centers; poll watchers being blocked from entering
vote counting centers—despite even having a
court order to enter; suitcases full of ballots being
pulled out from underneath tables after poll
watchers were told to leave.
• Facts for which no independently verified
reasonable explanation yet exists: On October 1,
2020, in Pennsylvania a laptop and several USB
drives, used to program Pennsylvania’s Dominion
voting machines, were mysteriously stolen from a
warehouse in Philadelphia. The laptop and the
USB drives were the only items taken, and
potentially could be used to alter vote tallies; In
Michigan, which also employed the same
Dominion voting system, on November 4, 2020,
Michigan election officials have admitted that a
purported “glitch” caused 6,000 votes for
President Trump to be wrongly switched to
Democrat Candidate Biden. A flash drive
containing tens of thousands of votes was left
unattended in the Milwaukee tabulations center
in the early morning hours of Nov. 4, 2020,
without anyone aware it was not in a proper chain
of custody."

[Kidlicious]

JM tries to reframe the case made by the litigants to make it seem that they don't provide evidence of fraud and claim that there was fraud by claiming that they only sued because security measures were violated. In fact, the violation of the security measures is a case in itself where the equal protection clause was violated, but the violations of security was part of the fraud because it allowed the fraud to take place.

"37. Absentee and mail-in voting are the
primary opportunities for unlawful ballots to be cast.
As a result of expanded absentee and mail-in voting
in Defendant States, combined with Defendant States’
unconstitutional modification of statutory protections
designed to ensure ballot integrity, Defendant States
created a massive opportunity for fraud. In addition,
the Defendant States have made it difficult or
impossible to separate the constitutionally tainted
mail-in ballots from all mail-in ballots.
38. Rather than augment safeguards
against illegal voting in anticipation of the millions of
additional mail-in ballots flooding their States,
Defendant States all materially weakened, or did
away with, security measures, such as witness or
signature verification procedures, required by their
respective legislatures. Their legislatures established
those commonsense safeguards to prevent—or at least
reduce—fraudulent mail-in ballots.
39. Significantly, in Defendant States,
Democrat voters voted by mail at two to three times
the rate of Republicans. Former Vice President Biden
thus greatly benefited from this unconstitutional
usurpation of legislative authority, and the
weakening of legislative mandated ballot security
measures.
"

[Jon Miller]

They include the fact that there was many accusations made (baseless and nonsense, they even include that statistical accusation which is complete lunacy since it assumes that all ballots which would be counted were mixed up and then counted in a random order (this isn't the case, for obvious reasons)). But that is to build the case that there is reason to doubt the results from those states due to claimed procedural errors (which are not procedural errors and mail-in-ballots have been used by states for 100+ years). It isn't what the case was about. They were not trying to convince the court of those 'facts' and didn't provide any evidence for them.

That they were trying to claim as facts what hadn't been proven (And many, like the statistical 'argument' had in fact been disproven) is just ridiculous.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I seem to remember that there was a point where Biden was ahead in Texas (early). According to that 'statistical argument', that should mean Biden won and the fact he didn't as because Texas changed the vote and not because the later votes counted were more Republican leaning..

It is lunacy.

JM

[Jon Miller]

They include the fact that there was many accusations made (baseless and nonsense, they even include that statistical accusation which is complete lunacy since it assumes that all ballots which would be counted were mixed up and then counted in a random order (this isn't the case, for obvious reasons)). But that is to build the case that there is reason to doubt the results from those states due to claimed procedural errors (which are not procedural errors and mail-in-ballots have been used by states for 100+ years). It isn't what the case was about. They were not trying to convince the court of those 'facts' and didn't provide any evidence for them.

That they were trying to claim as facts what hadn't been proven (And many, like the statistical 'argument' had in fact been disproven) is just ridiculous.

JM

[Ming]

They maybe claiming that the process was fraudulent, and that the possibility of fraud was increased, but the bit you printed doesn't provide any evidence at all that actual massive voter fraud took place.
And if I remember correctly from reading the whole suit, no evidence of massive voter fraud was ever presented in any of the entire suit.
It's mostly, increased possibility and that D's used mail-in ballots more the R's
It claims the whole process was unconstitutional, which is where they are trying to tell other states how to run their elections.

[Jon Miller]

It's difficult for me to copy from the Texas lawsuit but this should prove that JM is falsely accusing.

"than 173,000 ballots in the Wayne County, MI
center that cannot be tied to a registered voter;2
• Videos of: poll workers erupting in cheers as poll
challengers are removed from vote counting
centers; poll watchers being blocked from entering
vote counting centers—despite even having a
court order to enter; suitcases full of ballots being
pulled out from underneath tables after poll
watchers were told to leave.
• Facts for which no independently verified
reasonable explanation yet exists: On October 1,
2020, in Pennsylvania a laptop and several USB
drives, used to program Pennsylvania’s Dominion
voting machines, were mysteriously stolen from a
warehouse in Philadelphia. The laptop and the
USB drives were the only items taken, and
potentially could be used to alter vote tallies; In
Michigan, which also employed the same
Dominion voting system, on November 4, 2020,
Michigan election officials have admitted that a
purported “glitch” caused 6,000 votes for
President Trump to be wrongly switched to
Democrat Candidate Biden. A flash drive
containing tens of thousands of votes was left
unattended in the Milwaukee tabulations center
in the early morning hours of Nov. 4, 2020,
without anyone aware it was not in a proper chain
of custody."

My first post has to be approved, but these are not accusations or facts that the case is trying to make. These are used to create the 'fact' that accusations exist in the public sphere and a reason to doubt the election result when combined with the claimed procedural errors (which are not errors, as determined by Pennsylvania).

JM

[Jon Miller]

This is what you left off Kid:
7. The rampant lawlessness arising out of Defendant States’ unconstitutional acts is described in a number of currently pending lawsuits in Defendant States or in public view including:

'public viewing' meaning that the accusation had been made in the media but wasn't made in court, which the ones which were not proven in court to be baseless were... and like the statistical one is obvious lunacy

JM
( https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov...OTUSFiling.pdf )

[Kidlicious]

They include the fact that there was many accusations made (baseless and nonsense, they even include that statistical accusation which is complete lunacy since it assumes that all ballots which would be counted were mixed up and then counted in a random order (this isn't the case, for obvious reasons)). But that is to build the case that there is reason to doubt the results from those states due to claimed procedural errors (which are not procedural errors and mail-in-ballots have been used by states for 100+ years). It isn't what the case was about. They were not trying to convince the court of those 'facts' and didn't provide any evidence for them.

That they were trying to claim as facts what hadn't been proven (And many, like the statistical 'argument' had in fact been disproven) is just ridiculous.

JM

This is nonsense. The statistical evidence isn't lunacy and hasn't been debunked. It is in fact evidence provided by Texas. You're arguing from conclusion

The claim made by Texas is that Biden won those states because of fraud and that those states are guilty of not taking steps to prevent that fraud. They would not have any case without the proof of fraud because if Biden won without fraud then they would not have been damaged. You can only sue for damages. IOW, PA etc damaged Texas by permitting fraud. That is their case, not thus fake case you are making up.

[Kidlicious]

I seem to remember that there was a point where Biden was ahead in Texas (early). According to that 'statistical argument', that should mean Biden won and the fact he didn't as because Texas changed the vote and not because the later votes counted were more Republican leaning..

It is lunacy.

JM

You're misrepresenting the case for statistical evidence. All of the statistical evidence shows that their are statistical anomalies which make it almost impossible for Biden to have won.

So I'm not really sure what you are claiming is what the argument is, but there was no dump in Texas in the early morning hours so I don't know what you're talking about.

[Lancer]

Kid, I admire your persistence. Remember amigo, no matter how many times you beat your head on a brink wall, unlikely you will get it to move. I look at it as not my job nor destiny to do so, they have to come to terms with reality in their own way, as do we all.

[Kidlicious]

This is what you left off Kid:
7. The rampant lawlessness arising out of Defendant States’ unconstitutional acts is described in a number of currently pending lawsuits in Defendant States or in public view including:

'public viewing' meaning that the accusation had been made in the media but wasn't made in court, which the ones which were not proven in court to be baseless were... and like the statistical one is obvious lunacy

JM
( https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov...OTUSFiling.pdf )

That's just a lie. Nothing presented in the Texas case was debunked. What you just added doesn't say that it was. It is actually saying that Biden won by fraud. Again, if there was no fraud then Texas would not have been damaged by the other states and Texas would not have a case for that reason.

[Kidlicious]

"10. The probability of former Vice President
Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant
States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s
early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4,
2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000. For former Vice President
Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of...

[Kidlicious]

...that event happening decrease to less than one in a
quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,0004). See Decl. of Charles J.
Cicchetti, Ph.D. (“Cicchetti Decl.”) at ¶¶ 14-21, 30-31.
See App. 4a-7a, 9a.
11. The same less than one in a quadrillion
statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the
popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia,
Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—
independently exists when Mr. Biden’s performance
in each of those Defendant States is compared to
former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s
performance in the 2016 general election and
President Trump’s performance in the 2016 and 2020
general elections. Again, the statistical improbability
of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in these four
States collectively is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0005. Id.
10-13, 17-21, 30-31.
12. Put simply, there is substantial reason to
doubt the voting results in the Defendant States.
13. By purporting to waive or otherwise
modify the existing state law in a manner that was
wholly ultra vires and not adopted by each state’s
legislature, Defendant States violated not only the
Electors Clause, U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2, but also
the Elections Clause, id. art. I, § 4 (to the extent that
the Article I Elections Clause textually applies to th"

[Kidlicious]

So they point to evidence which they intend to prove in court or significant fraud.

[Ming]

"10. The probability of former Vice President
Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant
States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s
early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4,
2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000. For former Vice President
Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of...

And that proves what? Please show me the actual proof of the fraud.
All this is is somebodies "opinion" of what they think the odds were based on their personal take of the Data.
And it is just odds... it does not prove anything...
Heck, if you want to play that game, one could argue that Trump cheated because all the "expert" opinion polls showed he was much farther behind and the ODDS going into the election of him winning were not good... but after the voting the results were far closer than predicted, SO HE MUST HAVE CHEATED...
So again, no actual PROOF of massive voter fraud at all

[Dauphin]

The odds that opinion is correct is less than one in a quadrillion. Or more accurately, zero.

[Dauphin]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Kidlicious]

Whatever. Don't waste my time with you opinions that aren't based in anything.

[Dauphin]

Kid, you have absolutely no comprehension of statistics or what the one in quadrillion statement is based on. Let me educate you, and then have you ignore it:

The figure is obtained by taking the population of votes counted up to time X, and votes counted after time X (the point in time in which Trump was 'winning'). Given that the proportion of votes for each candidate in each counting period were different (earlier votes for Trump, later votes for Biden), the statistical likelihood that they constitute the same pool of voters is one in a quadrillion. This is correct. What is being assumed is that the pool of voters should be the same, when all it is doing is stating an obvious fact. Republicans votes in person and had votes counted earlier, Democrats votes by mail and had votes counted later - they are fundamentally different pools of voters. This is not evidence of fraud or even a statistically improbable result.

In fact, the argument could be equally argued that the probablility of Trump leading in the early counting was evidence of fraud, as there was less than a one in quadrillion likelihood of leading by such an amount given the volume of Biden votes counted. Such a claim would be based on the same equally absurd assumption.